User talk:128.91.218.136

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your submission at Articles for creation: Howard Kunreuther (April 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Ugh, it still reads like an academic resume. Please clean up and shorten list of accomplishments. Reformat in chronological and not reverse order, and reference the items.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, 128.91.218.136! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Howard Kunreuther (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
You also need to review WP:MOS for how to properly format your article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Howard Kunreuther (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CaptainEek was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
He seems probably notable, but this article still reads like a resume. The lead needs to become mostly body content (the lead should merely summarize the article). The current body content reads exactly like a CV, not a formal encyclopedia
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Howard Kunreuther has been accepted

Howard Kunreuther, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Please do not restoreany of thematerial that has now been deleted.The list of books shows the notability well enough, without repeating it in a list of fields of interest.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kunreuther

Thank you for posting the article. Why were Key Research Findings deleted? They were the most important part and were all neutral and informative. Can that be restored. I could delete about half of the books, if that helps. 128.91.218.136 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:128.91.218.136"